Obama judge bars Trump from penalizing dirty Dem law firm

An Obama-appointed judge’s latest move against the president attempted to hamstring his efforts to disassociate the federal government from a Steele dossier-connected law firm.

While President Donald Trump forged ahead in crafting a legacy aimed at America First policies in all sectors, his opposition continued their unending lawfare. This included a Friday ruling from U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell in favor of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s campaign law firm, Perkins Coie, deeming the president’s executive order against the firm “unconstitutional.”

“No American President has ever before issued executive orders like the one at issue in this lawsuit targeting a prominent law firm with adverse actions to be executed by all Executive branch agencies but, in purpose and effect, this action draws from a playbook as old as Shakespeare, who penned the phrase: ‘The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers,’” began the opinion from Howell that restricted the government from enforcing the president’s order.

As with other firms alleged to have been involved in questionable practices, Trump had issued an executive order in early March that called out Perkins Coie for hiring Fusion GPS, responsible for the infamous Steele dossier, while working for Clinton’s failed 2016 presidential campaign.

The order accused the firm of having “worked with activist donors including George Soros to judicially overturn popular, necessary, and democratically enacted election laws, including those requiring voter identification,” and claimed it “racially discriminates against its own attorneys and staff, and against applicants.”

It also suspended the firm’s security clearances and prohibited the federal government from funding contractors represented by Perkins Coie, prompting the firm to file a suit against the administration claiming, “The Order imposes these punishments as retaliation for the firm’s association with, and representation of, clients that the President perceives as his political opponents.”

Howell went on to argue Friday, “Using the powers of the federal government to target lawyers for their representation of clients and avowed progressive employment policies in an overt attempt to suppress and punish certain viewpoints, however, is contrary to the Constitution, which requires that the government respond to dissenting or unpopular speech or ideas with ‘tolerance, not coercion.’”

Of course, the opinion was only her latest move made against the administration as in February, the judge, who’d been openly critical about Trump’s pardon for Jan. 6 defendants, ruled that FBI had to release records related to the dismissed Mar-a-Lago documents case.

“Absent correct application of an exemption, disclosure is required to allow the American people to learn about actions of government officials that the officials themselves may not otherwise want to be made public,” Howell had ruled, prompting many to agree it was past time for activist judges to start facing impeachment for their own alleged involvement in lawfare.

Staff Writer

Native of Brooklyn, NY, Kevin Haggerty is a graduate of Hunter College where he studied Cultural Anthropology and Geography. An avid reader and truth seeker, he currently resides in Texas with his wife and their dog and, when he isn’t researching current events and their impacts, you’ll find him spending time with friends and family or working on his next novel.

Latest posts by Kevin Haggerty (see all)

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.